Experimental Kitchen

This role-play-based exercise may be performed by a group of people at an early (but not necessarily initial) stage of a collaborative process. By inviting participants to engage in a group discussion through the enactment of scripted roles, this exercise aims at shuffling and exaggerating customary social roles. As a result, this experiment may stir unanticipated group dynamics and is overall intended to lead to concrete constructive decision-making. Each role's succinct description consists in a set of behavioural conditions imagined to stimulate affective relations among participants and between participants and the subject being discussed.

One or two participant(s) volunteer(s) for facilitating (and documenting) the session. The participants that are not facilitators are randomly attributed a role which they may keep secret.

Roles:
[This page can be photocopied and each role can be cut into tickets and distributed to the participants]

copy + ✄______________________________________________________
"The Table"
...will be the one opening each the conversation for every topic;
...is not able to ask any questions;
...is confident in their ideas;
...is opinionated and vocal about the majority of topics being discussed.
✄__________________________________________________________
"The Toothpick"
...will exclusively express themselves in short and precise sentences;
...is obsessed with pasting or reading definitions at any occasion;
...will care to clarify key-words and ambiguous words.
✄__________________________________________________________
"The Olive Oil"
...will keep track of the topics that need to be discussed and make sure they are all covered;
...will make sure everyone's voice (especially "Tea Cup") is being heard;
...loves making lists.
✄__________________________________________________________
"The Bread Knife"
...will exclusively start debating with a negative sentence (eg. using 'no', 'not', 'do not', etc.);
...is concerned with "worst case scenarios", concern which may create a debate;
...is focused on challenging the weakest point of an idea.
✄__________________________________________________________
"The Honey Pot"
...will mostly interact with "Bread Knife": Based on "Bread Knife's" doubts, "Honey Pot" will attempt to formulate compromises;
...will mostly start their sentences by acknowledging and follow by an alternative (eg: "I understand where these doubts are coming from, but...")
...may feel supported by teaming up with "Sea Salt";
...is optimistic and arranging.
✄__________________________________________________________
"The Tea Cup"
...will exclusively talk when "Olive Oil" gives them a chance to do so;
...will engage in depth once given the space for it, can support or be supported by "Toothpick";
...(if using a text editor for collective editorial, always write sentences in parentheses);
...is an introvert but original thinker.
✄__________________________________________________________
"The Whisk"
...will exclusively participate with interrogative sentences;
...is never too assertive;
...will focus on mostly addressing the Table (but is invited intervene at anytime too).
✄__________________________________________________________
"The Jug"
...has the ability to highlight the idea of one other character of their choice: The Jug will internally pick a character at the beginning of the session and will exclusively respond to them, aiming to trigger the further development of an idea;
...is dedicated to seek potential in someone's idea;
...will care to rephrase important ideas when they are unclear.
✄__________________________________________________________
"The Sea Salt"
...will express with sentences starting with "Let's" (eg: "Let's not forget, we only have two weeks!");
...will offer concrete and simple alternative when the group conversation seem to spiral;
...is realistic, pragmatic and sassy;
...will remind the group when something is off topic, when the conversation is too long or repetitive.
✄__________________________________________________________
"The Pepper Mill",
...will build upon "Sea Salt's" ideas and aim to make them more complete;
...will express by stating the 'pro's' and 'con's' of each suggestions;
...is analytical, sharp and clear when they express.
✄__________________________________________________________

Variant: This exercise is ideal for a medium sized group (10 participants) but can surely be adapted to a smaller or larger group. Depending on the group's size, certain roles may be removed from or added to this list. If imagining new roles, keep in mind that the conditions for participation must affect other characters or affect the group in general.

The beginning phase of the discussion is supported by a script where designated participants are invited to express at an allocated moment. During this slow paced phase, participants get acquainted with their role.

Suggestion for a script: In the following example, the script is intended to be legible and responded to by all participants simultaneously using an online document for collective editing. The use of such tool is recommended for both documentation and facilitation purposes.

Start of the script
The facilitator defines the aim of the discussion: (...)
The facilitator announces the timeline of the session: (...)

"Table" gives an opinion: (...)
"Olive Oil" lists the important topics to discuss during this session: (...)
"Whisk" asks an open question: (...)
The facilitator answers the question: (...)
"Bread Knife" starts a debate by stating their doubt on a specific point point: (...)
"Honey Pot" attempts to comprehend "Bread Knife": (...)

• • • Everyone thinks out loud***
      
  • Each character types here one question (3 minutes)**
    

Table: (..?)
Whisk: (..?)
Toothpick: (..?)
Olive Oil: (..?)
Honey Pot: (..?)
Tea Cup: (..?)
Bread Knife: (..?)
Sea Salt: (..?)
Pepper Mill: (..?)
Jug: (..?)

• • • Everyone reads each other's questions***
      

The facilitator attempts to answer every questions: (...)
"Table" gives an opinion: (...)
"Bread Knife" expresses a doubt: (...)
"Sea Salt" offers an alternative solution: (...)
"Bread Knife" gives a doubt about this solution: (...)
"Pepper Mill" attempts to highlight both perspectives and builds on "Sea Salt's" solution: (...)
"Olive Oil" triggers "Tea Cup's" opinion on a chosen point mentioned in the conversation so far: (...)
"Tea Cup" responds: (...)
"Honey Pot" supports "Tea Cup's" idea: (...)
"Toothpick" goes back through the conversation and clarify points, words or concepts aforementioned: (...)
"Jug" chooses a character to address: (...)
The named character answers "Jug": (...)
"Toothpick" clarifies more points: (...)
"Whisk" raises a question: (...)

• • • Everyone thinks out loud***
      
  • Each character types here one idea "to keep" and one idea "to discard" (3 minutes)**
    

Table: (...)
Whisk: (...)
Toothpick: (...)
Olive Oil: (...)
Honey Pot: (...)
Tea Cup: (...)
Bread Knife: (...)
Sea Salt: (...)
Pepper Mill: (...)
Jug: (...)

• • • Everyone reads each other's thoughts ***
      

Start of the free-form conversation while embodying your character (announce your role name before you type)—

Keep in mind the aim of this discussion: (Aim of the discussion announced at the beginning)

At a further point of the exercise (which is indicated by the facilitator), the partly-scripted discussion evolves towards a 'free form' discussion. The session ends according to the timeline pre-established.